NARINDER SINGH Vs. JARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed suit for permanent injunction for restraining defendants (petitioner herein) from digging watercourse in his land. It was claimed by the plaintiff in the suit that no watercourse existed at the site and the defendants are threatening to dig out the watercourse forcibly and they be restrained from doing so. In the written statement, it was claimed by the defendants that the watercourse was in existence for the last so many years. It was also claimed that the defendants are not going to use the watercourse forcibly. Rather, defendants had approached the Authorities under the Haryana - Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 for restoration of the watercourse.

(2.) Trial Court, initially granted ad-interim injunction but vacated the same on 6th May, 1992 on the basis of the order passed by Sub-Divisional Canal Officer under section 24 of the Act. This order was passed on the application of the defendants. In his order, the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, Tohana, found that the watercourse was dismantled which was running at the site for the irrigation of the land of the defendants. He ordered restoration of the water-course for one year in the interest of irrigation under section 24 of the Act. This order was challenged by the plaintiff in appeal before the Appellate Court who vide impugned order, set aside the order of the Trial Court and granted injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining defendants from getting watercourse restored. This order has been challenged in this Court here in this Civil Revision.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the civil revision deserves to succeed.